Tennessee Supreme Court reviews whether a city's ordinance substantially interferes with a firework dealer's use of land

SNPCO, INC. v. CITY OF JEFFERSON CITY ET AL. (Tenn. March 26, 2012)

This appeal involves the question of whether a city’s ordinance banning the sale of fireworks within its city limits implicates Tenn. Code Ann. § 13-7-208(b) (Supp. 2008) which permits pre-existing nonconforming businesses to continue to operate despite a “zoning change.”

After the City of Jefferson City annexed the property on which a fireworks retailer’s business was located, the retailer filed suit in the Circuit Court for Jefferson County seeking compensation for a regulatory taking or, in the alternative, for a declaration that Tenn. Code Ann. § 13-7-208(b) permitted it to continue to sell fireworks.

The trial court dismissed the retailer’s complaint in accordance with Tenn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(6), and the Court of Appeals affirmed. SNPCO, Inc. v. City of Jefferson City, No. E2009-02355-COA-R3-CV, 2010 WL 4272744, at *11 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 29, 2010). We granted the retailer’s Tenn. R. App. P. 11 application to clarify the application of the “substantial interference” test in Cherokee Country Club, Inc. v. City of Knoxville, 152 S.W.3d 466 (Tenn. 2004) to ordinances such as the one involved in this case.

We have determined that our decision in Cherokee Country Club, Inc. v. City of Knoxville requires consideration of both the terms and effects of the challenged ordinance. Thus, the courts must first determine whether the challenged ordinance relates to the city’s “general plan of zoning.” If the courts determine that the challenged ordinance relates to the city’s general plan of zoning, then, and only then, may the courts ascertain whether the ordinance results in a “substantial interference” with the use of land.

Based on this record, we have determined that Jefferson City’s challenged ordinance banning the sale of fireworks within its city limits is not related to the city’s general plan of zoning. Accordingly, we affirm the judgments of the courts below.

Opinion available at:
https://www.tba.org/sites/default/files/snpcoinc_032612.pdf

Court reviews the "starting point" for determining the amount owed in a case involving a loan dispute

DELTA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, ZOO CONCESSION AND GIFT, INC., and SMITH & ROGERS COMPANY v. F. FANI GULF INTERNATIONAL, GULF INTERNATIONAL, FAROKH FANI, and F. FANI/GULF INTERNATIONAL v. FARIBORZ FERDOWSI; LELA FERDOWSI; FARZIN FERDOWSI; ZIBA FERDOWSI; FARSHEED FERDOWSI; TALIEH FERDOWSI; AZAR FERDOWSI; CYRUS AZHDARI; HOMAYOUN AMINMADANI; and ZOHRE AMINMADANI (Tenn. Ct. App. April 4, 2012)

Defendants made a series of loans to Plaintiffs and a dispute arose as to the interest and principal owed. A judgment was entered in favor of Defendants. However, Defendants appealed the award, claiming that the trial court erred in admitting evidence, which allegedly reduced the judgment amount, and in refusing to hold all shareholders of the Plaintiff companies liable for the judgment. Plaintiffs also claim, on appeal, that the Special Master and the trial court set an incorrect “starting point” for determining the judgment owed. We affirm the Special Master and the trial court in all respects.

Opinion available at:
https://www.tba.org/sites/default/files/deltadevelopment_040412.pdf